Ireland ends abortion ban as 'quiet revolution' transforms country

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I am arguing for the rights of children, and babies are a big deal, especially to pregnant people.

You’re arguing against the right of women holding domain over their own bodies.

 

You’re a man, you’ll never be pregnant and you’ll never face the awful decisions women have face in these matters.

 

The vote went against you and all others who feel it tgeir right to control women’s rights over their own bodies.

 

Find something more useful to do with your time, go watch some sport or have a beer.

[pedro01]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

As far as I know, 12 weeks is the cut-off limit 99% of the time, but I haven't checked the statistics.

 

If I'm right, why on earth are you going on about a tiny minority of 'special circumstances' cases carried out at 24 weeks as if this is 'the norm'?

 

At the point that most abortions are carried out (less than 12 weeks), the fetus doesn't have a functioning brain or nervous system?  I stand to be corrected if this is not the case.

 

Quite simply because the debate is not a yes/no debate.

 

It should always be about "how late". 

 

In the US - there's about 1.2 million abortions a year.

 

1.3% are > 21 weeks - which is 15,600 children. At that point the baby is kicking, reacts to sound, light and touch & can feel pain.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, pedro01 said:

 

Quite simply because the debate is not a yes/no debate.

 

It should always be about "how late". 

 

In the US - there's about 1.2 million abortions a year.

 

1.3% are > 21 weeks - which is 15,600 children. At that point the baby is kicking, reacts to sound, light and touch & can feel pain.

Why are you still going on about the tiny minority of abortions carried out after 12 weeks?

 

What is the percentage carried out at 12 weeks or less?

 

As far as I know it requires special circumstances to obtain an abortion over the 12 week cut-off.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Quite simply because the debate is not a yes/no debate.

 

It should always be about "how late". 

 

In the US - there's about 1.2 million abortions a year.

 

1.3% are > 21 weeks - which is 15,600 children. At that point the baby is kicking, reacts to sound, light and touch & can feel pain.

Thank you for providing one of the more compelling arguments against the kind of restrictions placed on women accessing their rights to abortion, refer geriatrickid's celebratory post .22.

 

Obstacles are created and applied to impede women's access to abortion, the result is obviously going to be delays in access and hence later abortions. 

 

Here's the twist, reactionary dullards argue in favour of restricting women's swift and obstacle free access to abortion, the same reactionary dullards fighting women's rights use 'late abortions' created by the policies they support an argument against abortion. 

 

In these policies the religious zealots and misfits who feel it their right lord control over women's bodies demonstrate their own callous disregard for the suffering caused by denying women their rights while at the same time blaming women for that suffering. 

 

Utterly utterly disgusting. 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[Dumbastheycome]

8 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

This is a very shallow view of the argument. It implies an abortion at 8.5 months is OK. 

 

A full term pregnancy is 39/40 weeks. 

 

Almost 60% of kids born at 24 weeks now live. Kids are viable from about 23 weeks on.

 

The latest abortions are done at around 32 weeks - at that point, the method is to use forceps to grab the babies legs and pull it out with the exception of the head. An instrument is then stabbed into the babies head and spread to make a hole. A suction tube is then inserted to suck out the babies brain. The head is then crushed and the rest of the baby pulled out.

 

At 24 weeks, it's a bit easier, they pull the babies limbs off within the womb before crushing the skull. 

 

In a Hysterotomy, a C-Section is performed and a living baby is removed. They leave it to die or the abortionist kills it. They actually have a live child extracted that they then have to kill. Not saying the child would survive for long but if you consider the survival rate at 24 weeks, this is all quite horrific.

 

They also use poisoning - in 2nd & 3rd trimester which gives the child a brain hemorrhage and convulsions before it dies.

 

My view is that it's not so much about whether they be allowed but how late they be allowed. There's videos on line showing late abortions and it's pretty gruesome. 

"Hysterotomy" ???ok, you intended that  to be  hysterectomy.  But  excuse me where  is  it that such a procedure automatically involves  pregnancy??? 

The  majority  of your post  is   some  hallacinatory fantasy.

Late term terminations  are a relatively  small  percentage but in  normal  clinical situations   performed  for legally   justified  reason are  not any  more  'gruesome" than   most  surgical  procedures.

On  line   videos would   not  be  typical  of   proper  and legitimate  procedure.

Is  it  possible  you  are  also a  devotee  of   "real  " UFO videos  online  too?

 

[Credo]

8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I am arguing for the rights of children, and babies are a big deal, especially to pregnant people.

To reiterate the normal conservative stance, if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

[pedro01]

3 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

"Hysterotomy" ???ok, you intended that  to be  hysterectomy.  But  excuse me where  is  it that such a procedure automatically involves  pregnancy??? 

The  majority  of your post  is   some  hallacinatory fantasy.

Late term terminations  are a relatively  small  percentage but in  normal  clinical situations   performed  for legally   justified  reason are  not any  more  'gruesome" than   most  surgical  procedures.

On  line   videos would   not  be  typical  of   proper  and legitimate  procedure.

Is  it  possible  you  are  also a  devotee  of   "real  " UFO videos  online  too?

 

No, it IS hysterotomy.

 

Perhaps you should educate yourself before you make asinine comments.

 

Dictionary, Google - either would do.

 

Look it up, and then you can tell people you actually learnt something today.

 

What I learnt is that some people have board names that are eerily accurate.

Edited May 28, 2018 by pedro01

[pedro01]

11 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Why are you still going on about the tiny minority of abortions carried out after 12 weeks?

 

What is the percentage carried out at 12 weeks or less?

 

As far as I know it requires special circumstances to obtain an abortion over the 12 week cut-off.

 

As far as you know.... means you didn't research.

 

The reason I am going on about the late abortions is because this is not a yes/no issue. It is a "how late is too late" issue too.

 

I am not against abortion - I am against a baby that can feel having it's legs and arms ripped off, having it's brains mushed, being poisoned OR being killed on a table because in late abortions that is what happens. 

 

By all means make it a simple black and white issue. I personally think women should be able to abort up to a point. Past a certain point, when you have a child on a table that you have to kill - that is way past abortion. It's plain murder.

[pedro01]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Thank you for providing one of the more compelling arguments against the kind of restrictions placed on women accessing their rights to abortion, refer geriatrickid's celebratory post .22.

 

Obstacles are created and applied to impede women's access to abortion, the result is obviously going to be delays in access and hence later abortions. 

 

Here's the twist, reactionary dullards argue in favour of restricting women's swift and obstacle free access to abortion, the same reactionary dullards fighting women's rights use 'late abortions' created by the policies they support an argument against abortion. 

 

In these policies the religious zealots and misfits who feel it their right lord control over women's bodies demonstrate their own callous disregard for the suffering caused by denying women their rights while at the same time blaming women for that suffering. 

 

Utterly utterly disgusting. 

 

 

 

 

Whoa....

 

Have you ever had a rational debate? You know where you don't call people dullards and say how disgusting things are.

 

Your emotions are getting in the way. Step back. Make arguments.

 

Mine are simple - early abortions of clusters of cells - no problem. But there must be a cut off date, a date where it is no longer just about the woman. 

 

Or perhaps you are ok with a 9 month abortion, where anything before labour is ok.  To me, it isn't.

 

I find it odd that rational people are so 1 dimensional about the issue.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Whoa....

 

Have you ever had a rational debate? You know where you don't call people dullards and say how disgusting things are.

 

Your emotions are getting in the way. Step back. Make arguments.

 

Mine are simple - early abortions of clusters of cells - no problem. But there must be a cut off date, a date where it is no longer just about the woman. 

 

Or perhaps you are ok with a 9 month abortion, where anything before labour is ok.  To me, it isn't.

 

I find it odd that rational people are so 1 dimensional about the issue.

Whoa, 

 

Have you ever had a rational debated?

 

I gave you the very rational arguments that  the restrictions and obstacles placed in the way of women to prevent them getting early and easy access to abortions inevitably leads to late abortions. 

 

You chose to dodge that point. 

 

As for rational debate, where in any post I have made do I suggest I'm OK with '9 month abortions'? 

 

Skip the hyperbole and deal with the point I made, underlined above. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

As far as you know.... means you didn't research.

 

The reason I am going on about the late abortions is because this is not a yes/no issue. It is a "how late is too late" issue too.

 

I am not against abortion - I am against a baby that can feel having it's legs and arms ripped off, having it's brains mushed, being poisoned OR being killed on a table because in late abortions that is what happens. 

 

By all means make it a simple black and white issue. I personally think women should be able to abort up to a point. Past a certain point, when you have a child on a table that you have to kill - that is way past abortion. It's plain murder.

Again great arguments against any restrictions and obstacles placed in front of women seeking abortions. 

 

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

16 hours ago, pedro01 said:

No, it IS hysterotomy.

 

Perhaps you should educate yourself before you make asinine comments.

 

Dictionary, Google - either would do.

 

Look it up, and then you can tell people you actually learnt something today.

 

What I learnt is that some people have board names that are eerily accurate.

Ok, I stand corrected  in contextual terms  of  specific  procedure...only.

Perhaps  you   could  check  a  dictionary  or  google the primary definition  of  my  "board  name" and  reconsider  the  derogative  attempt of  your  innuendo. ?

[mikebike]

On 5/27/2018 at 8:09 AM, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

I don't like the idea of abortion but bans don't work, and anyone with a bit of money to travel can get it done in another country. 15-20 years after abortion was legalized crime went down dramatically in the US.   Instead people should have to prove they have a reasonable life plan can and afford to raise their kids.  Not too happy about social policies that encourage irresponsible breedings and the welfare state/big government paid for by my taxes.

So you don't want big govt paid for by your taxes but you are happy set up a govt bureaus to analyze peoples intent and ability to raise kids... Really?? Not Orwellian at all.

 

17 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

As far as you know.... means you didn't research.

 

The reason I am going on about the late abortions is because this is not a yes/no issue. It is a "how late is too late" issue too.

 

I am not against abortion - I am against a baby that can feel having it's legs and arms ripped off, having it's brains mushed, being poisoned OR being killed on a table because in late abortions that is what happens. 

 

By all means make it a simple black and white issue. I personally think women should be able to abort up to a point. Past a certain point, when you have a child on a table that you have to kill - that is way past abortion. It's plain murder.

No doubt a horrific thought.

 

One that medical professionals and parents must deal with when they are confronted with the 1.3-ish percent of cases where a later term abortion may be a medical necessity for the mother.

 

Difficult, personal, decisions should not be made by bureaucrats.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

 

15 hours ago, mikebike said:

So you don't want big govt paid for by your taxes but you are happy set up a govt bureaus to analyze peoples intent and ability to raise kids... Really?? Not Orwellian at all.

 

No doubt a horrific thought.

 

One that medical professionals and parents must deal with when they are confronted with the 1.3-ish percent of cases where a later term abortion may be a medical necessity for the mother.

 

Difficult, personal, decisions should not be made by bureaucrats.

Orwellian, well not the boot on the human face bit. Maybe facsist if that is a corporate state with personal and economic freedom within a high degree of social control but NO FREELOADING.

Singapore is probably the best model of Government. If place you have to bid on a license to be able to buy a car maybe people should have to apply for a license to breed?

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

 

Orwellian, well not the boot on the human face bit. Maybe facsist if that is a corporate state with personal and economic freedom within a high degree of social control but NO FREELOADING.

Singapore is probably the best model of Government. If place you have to bid on a license to be able to buy a car maybe people should have to apply for a license to breed?

You can keep your ‘Singaporean Government’.

 

It is very far from the best model of anything other than a police state.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You can keep your ‘Singaporean Government’.

 

It is very far from the best model of anything other than a police state.

Having lived there, I disagree. For me it's one of the only governments in the world, which is actually planning way ahead to the future.. and it gains it's power by encaging with citizens about the future plans. 

 

It really works in real life environment. 

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

 

Orwellian, well not the boot on the human face bit. Maybe facsist if that is a corporate state with personal and economic freedom within a high degree of social control but NO FREELOADING.

Singapore is probably the best model of Government. If place you have to bid on a license to be able to buy a car maybe people should have to apply for a license to breed?

Well maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Now I get it!! Your plan is to increase immigration by reducing childbirth amongst the native population!!

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

The generational poverty underclass in the USA don't worry about unrestrained pregnancies.  More kids more payments. Free apartments, free education, free food, all paid for by my tax dollars. The only country I know of where you have 23 years old girls with three kids by different men, rarely married. Thanks to mummy and daddies'  example  poor life choice the next generation of layabouts and crims certain. By the way they are not really poor compared to actual poor people around the world. All have color tvs and playstation consoles. Most are fat from junk food. Smart mobiles and air-conditioning. Always money on the side for drugs, cigarettes, tattoes, and alcohol.

 

America needs skilled immigrants because the welfare state created this unfortunate situation. Emergency aid ok, not the permanent "Hammock of Government Ease". I don't like the idea of them killing their babies or the Irish either but it would it is better to provide unlimited free birth control and limited access to early abortion than the alternative.  Difficult these days due to politics of  the religious fanatics of most of our conservative allies.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

The generational poverty underclass in the USA don't worry about unrestrained pregnancies.  More kids more payments. Free apartments, free education, free food, all paid for by my tax dollars. The only country I know of where you have 23 years old girls with three kids by different men, rarely married. Thanks to mummy and daddies'  example  poor life choice the next generation of layabouts and crims certain. By the way they are not really poor compared to actual poor people around the world. All have color tvs and playstation consoles. Most are fat from junk food. Smart mobiles and air-conditioning. Always money on the side for drugs, cigarettes, tattoes, and alcohol.

 

America needs skilled immigrants because the welfare state created this unfortunate situation. Emergency aid ok, not the permanent "Hammock of Government Ease". I don't like the idea of them killing their babies or the Irish either but it would it is better to provide unlimited free birth control and limited access to early abortion than the alternative.  Difficult these days due to politics of  the religious fanatics of most of our conservative allies.

The subject is Ireland's liberalisation of women's rights to abortion. 

 

Your problems belong in another thread. 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

Maybe I got off subject, but there are many reprecussions of such bans.

The Irish have decided and it was long overdue.

Hate to admit but "liberals" are right mostly on this issue. Family planning is an essential component of women's health care and it is actually a right to privacy decision between a woman and her Doctor.

 

Should not be dictated by fanatics and outdated and false Religious doctrines.

 

As an added benefit in 15 to 20 years crime will go down in Eire as many unwanted children likely to become crims are eliminated from the gene pool.

Edited May 30, 2018 by ChiangMaiLightning2143

[jspill]

On 5/28/2018 at 9:44 PM, Credo said:

To reiterate the normal conservative stance, if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

That stance never involves harming others though.

 

E.g. 'If you don't like the country, you can leave' (because liberals love to complain how much their first world country sucks)

 

'If you don't like that Christian bakers won't make a cake for your gay wedding, shop elsewhere'

 

And so on. 

 

It doesn't quite work with 'If you don't agree with killing a viable life with a beating heart as early as 21 days, don't do so yourself'. 

[Credo]

11 hours ago, jspill said:

That stance never involves harming others though.

 

E.g. 'If you don't like the country, you can leave' (because liberals love to complain how much their first world country sucks)

 

'If you don't like that Christian bakers won't make a cake for your gay wedding, shop elsewhere'

 

And so on. 

 

It doesn't quite work with 'If you don't agree with killing a viable life with a beating heart as early as 21 days, don't do so yourself'. 

Oh, and yours doesn't work either.   

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

That stance never involves harming others though.  

E.g. 'If you don't like the country, you can leave' (because liberals love to complain how much their first world country sucks)

 

'If you don't like that Christian bakers won't make a cake for your gay wedding, shop elsewhere'

 

And so on. 

 

It doesn't quite work with 'If you don't agree with killing a viable life with a beating heart as early as 21 days, don't do so yourself'. 

 

21 days is not a viable life. It is a clump of cells.

Classic “throbbing squirm”.

 

 

[bristolboy]

On 5/30/2018 at 8:16 PM, jspill said:

That stance never involves harming others though.

 

E.g. 'If you don't like the country, you can leave' (because liberals love to complain how much their first world country sucks)

 

'If you don't like that Christian bakers won't make a cake for your gay wedding, shop elsewhere'

 

And so on. 

 

It doesn't quite work with 'If you don't agree with killing a viable life with a beating heart as early as 21 days, don't do so yourself'. 

"E.g. 'If you don't like the country, you can leave' (because liberals love to complain how much their first world country sucks)"

So "Make America Great Again" was a liberal slogan?